which way it is designed. just looking arbitrarily at the model, i see some 3.5, some of them for blocks. so, if you are insensitive to the seniors -- i am not saying you are insensitive, but if you are insensitive by not really evaluating the model and you have to fix it, you know, as one of you alluded, c v m c is going to heavily impact this model. we also have a $30 million bond for asphalt and repair of roads. we need to do that in any meaningful way. so, i know that this is just a

presentation, but i have been listening to the commission and how they react. it is not easy to get a consensus. finally, i just wanted to remind you that we need to pay attention to the seniors. [tone] supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my ms george and i have lived in the corridor since 1978. i have specific concerns about the van ness fact sheet. 33% savings with a 40% reduction in stops. based on federal transit authority models, from the characteristics of bus rapid transit decision making top -- documents, chapter 3, page 5,

2009, more than 50% of the savings was achieved by eliminating these stops. second, increase transit rider ship by 39%. where does this come from? transit time is 69%. even with a more comprehensive plan, it is highly unlikely to change driver behavior. the diversion from the slower line, 19, makes sense, but that is not transit. more than 50% of the trips the start and end in this corridor already walk or bike. this is the most green and economic alternative. where is the campaign to increase this desirable result? pedestrian countdown signals, curbing the whole grid for upgrades, median upgrades, those kinds of safeties.

save for pedestrian crossings can and should be done. studies expanding upon a new build the base are not completed. but significant benefit could be achieved with many elements while maintaining six fixed use of blanks -- fixed use lengths. this could be to the most cost- effective plane -- plant -- plan with the least negative impact. [tone] supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i have lived there for -- since 1979. it has the bulk of the problems under less than two miles. it is a different issue with gary. the issue is whether to keep the

planes and make improvements, with express buses at peak hours and more stops during quiet hours, with a handicap on the elderly, who face squawking when they get on the bus and when they get off the bus. we have potential, assuming they're walking time is 1.5 blocks extra to three blocks extra, that is not much for most people, but it is hard for the handicapped and elderly. the question is, do you make the improvements, which by its own supported mission is based on the timesaving reliability, all of which is left under the really extreme emergency situations. so, any cost benefit analysis would favor the six lanes as the most flexible and adaptable to changing situations,

accomplishing a great deal without doing permanent damage to the residing neighborhood, which will give the overflow of traffic. six lanes are officially supported by pacific heights, golden gate's association, and the july meeting that was held to formulate their position. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is jackie sacks. we heard this issue, we heard this item at our last meeting.

a lot of things were brought up. one thing that concerns me, transportation is my middle name, if you want to know the truth, but that is beside the point. one thing that concerns me is the timeline of all of this. you have the california pacific center moving in between the posts. they have got that empty building across the street. you have got to worry about the construction of the middle. you have to worry about working on the median, with non- california pacific medical center, and the impact that they have because the drivers are being rebuilt with traffic converting up on van ness. you have got to take all of that into consideration before

anything is done. i mean, anything. you have got to get all the parties together. the california pacific medical center, you have got to get it all -- we have to sit down together and work out everything. if something goes wrong, the whole project does not allow the door. i do not want to see that happen. i am all for the median. it would eliminate the traffic, which is set to overflow without any problems. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, mr. chair. directors. on behalf of the bicycle collision, i bring you our enthusiastic support for that alternative.

as we have noted, congratulations and appreciation to staff and agency partners, who are judged -- juggling a lot of imperatives, not the least of which is that it is state route 101. i think that we are getting someplace exciting. speaking to the notion of the corridor, you heard the presentation and the parallel facilities. folks street is really important for bicycle traffic. you know that they're pushing hard to make it an excellent bike way. we just want to make sure that with collaboration, it will happen. debbie bring them along with the project, so that it is multi- modal. we are very excited to reach this point. i think that we have got an alternative that works very well. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. let's take folks from this side,

right now. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is terry and i represent the transportation policy committee that has studied this manner -- this matter extensively. i testified on may 15 and urged support of the l p a. we also wanted to congratulate mta staff for collaborating on this high maintenance solution. we believe that the median transit operation draws from the best features of the eir, resulting in serious transfer service at lower costs. most importantly, these elements have been previously studied in the environmental process. that is what we urged at the mta. it has been a long approval process.

i remember a 10-year member of this cac who left in 2008. this was on the front burner at that time now we are still spending the one-year construction project. the spur and its members urge your body to move was ahead. thank you for your time. -- move us ahead. thank you for your time. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please? >> my name is jim frank. i am a member of the san francisco incumbent forward push on this project. this is a great alternative. we were really happy that you came together with this good alternative. deals with all the issues that are the big issues for van ness. as mentioned before, california is one of the slowest.

in the middle, the buses will be this -- the fastest. this is really good. it is what we want. the city appreciates us. all of the pedestrian improvements are great. it will make van ness kind of a through corridor. it will help people, rather than diverting them, they can move through and go through on a van that nests, so that there will be fewer impacts. i encourage you to go forward with this. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. i am with san francisco transit. i have written muni my whole life. i wanted to say that i supported this project. this will greatly speed up service on the 47 in the of 49.

-- on the 47 and the 49. lots of people will greatly benefit from this project. it will also revitalize the run- down corridor. it will also perpetuate -- not perpetuate, but really, i guess, it will really add to our relying on the transit first policy. for too long we have been favoring the automobile. we have got to start planning sustainably. this is just one of the first steps in that. please endorse this alternative and move ahead with this alternative. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. please, come forward. >> mr. chairman, supervisors,

your staff made a very thorough presentation to the civic center planning benefit committee. we did not, as a board, take a position on this, but i wanted to express my views, as a longtime person involved in the civic center. i am delighted that the city family got together and came up with an alternative that everyone can support. i would like to say that i have written on the system -- ridden on the system in ecuador. you can travel very efficiently across the city, and it is a very congested city. therefore, i look forward to having the median alternative in san francisco for rarely discussed. -- thoroughly discussed.

i do not think that one should dismiss five minutes as an insignificant amount of time. i ride on the mission express bus now and then. when it zips along, you really feel as though you are getting somewhere in your day is going to be more efficient than otherwise. also, i think that this project is going to do a good deal for the urban design of a van ness, which is a hodgepodge of improvements going back 50 to 80 years. i think that it will rationalize the street and help to improve the area, enhancing the value is of the different buildings. i urge you to adopt this alternative and to proceed as rapidly as you can. thank you. supervisor cohen: supervisor

avalos: thank we supervisor avalos: jig thank you -- supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> the neighborhood association, on the south end of the corridor, firmly endorses this option. the market octavia community advisory committee voted unanimously to endorse the center-run brt in the winter. the van ness citizens advisory committee voted 6-3. there is a lot of public support for this that goes back to 1995, when muni came out with an four corridors plan, including bus rapid transit. all the way in between through 2009, they are seen as a critical part of the effect of this project. this has been in the works for quite some time. unfortunately, it has been marketed as a something to be

built quickly, but we are almost 15 years since we started talking about it. we probably could have built three subway lines by then, but i will not buy rest. the mitigation aspect will be very important. the market octavia cac is very concerned about franklin and golf at market street. let me be clear, we are not interested in facilitating further automobiles in that corridor. we want to secure it for future cycle tracks and transit improvements, for optimizing that court or before the pedestrians. we want -- corridor for the pedestrians. we want to reintroduce the crosswalks that were removed in that part of town. the neighbors association has put together a letter and that we have distributed to the mta and supervisor olague, and

hopefully supervisor kim, with a list of possible litigations that are transit mitigation. thank you for supervisor avalos: thank you very much for mentioning those crosswalks. i have walked them many times and it's very confusing and very inconvenient. any other members of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. if we can hear from a staff on some of the discussions on the alternatives and the preferred alternative report has in terms of a discussion around pedestrian amenities and focus on some aspects that would be important to seniors as well? >> thank you for the questions and the great public comment. the lpa report talks about

features common to all the alternatives. the pedestrian features like lighting, and implementation of the countdown signal, even eliminating the left-hand turns , the those are really all part of the alternatives. we think that because the left turns are limited, it will make it easier at have less conflict for left-turning vehicles. in terms of that, we know level boarding and a loaf for buses and we're trying to attempt to make the platforms level with the buses so there is less stepping up into the bus, people can step or rolled a stroller or and wheelchair straight across. we know that the consolidation

is an issue for seniors. we did a lot of prioritization to make sure their center around key transit routes. we took into account things like a grade of the street and land usage to limit that. we are working so that right now it is two blocks or two and a half blocks -- four blocks is the maximum. it would be an additional block and a half for someone to walk if they were in between the stations and we were working with communities to limit how far they would need to walk. in terms of any other specific comments from the public, we know that new york has implemented some features, including a dedicated lained only collection and they have

seen significant travel time savings in the running time of the buses. they are able to move quicker and it is a significant benefit and a key component. if you take little bits and pieces, when everything is together, we have a new mode of transportation. we think we will get the performance of a rail-like experience at a lower cost. it has been rated the least expensive project in the nation. it is a cost-effective project. supervisor farrell: this is not necessarily directed at staff, but i'm the one who proposed continuing this. i received a number of concerned letters and e-mail from neighborhood groups in my district.

some individuals -- i see george here and i asked for time because i had not been briefed by staff on the final program. since then, i want to thank the staff for coming in meeting with me a number of times and answering questions. with anything we do, nothing is perfect and at this time, i am comfortable moving this forward the way it is. the one thing to be clear about what i would focus on was the neighborhood effects. i have expressed this of is you create the issue, how is going to affect the arterial around van ness -- there are a lot of concerns, valid concerns about

how this will affect their daily lives and i have talked long and hard with staff and i think them to get more statistics out there. i am in the process of setting up meetings with the number of neighborhood groups to talk about these issues to talk about how things will be affected and talk about some of the mitigation potentials i have talked to staff that i think will have a real effect and will be meaningful in district 2. commissioner tim mentioned the left turn issues. the thoroughfare downtown is an issue i would like to see addressed. the coordination efforts -- that is going to be tough but coordination is a big deal,

certainly as we hear about that, but i would like to thank staff for taking the time to truly talk through a lot of these issues and be able to respond to the neighborhood groups -- nothing is perfect but a lot of the things i have heard over the last month has got me more comfortable where we are. i am happy to make a motion to move this forward. >> second. supervisor avalos: we have a motion and a second. without objection, we will move that forward. thank you. thank you very much for your presentation. let's go on to item no. 6. >> recommendation for allocation of 12 million preferred $46,818 in proposition k funds with the conditions for nine annual requests.

>> good morning, commissioners. on the transportation planner. item #6 begins on page 46 of your package. in addition, each project request form can be found in the enclosure to the packet which you also have. we received nine applications to the annual call for projects requesting a little over $12 million. project sponsors are able to request funds at any time of the year if the sponsor can demonstrate need and readiness. the demonstration is to bring the projects to the board as soon as we can, allowing them to include the funding in their budgets and allows sponsors to have time to beef up staffing or other resources and have that in place.

page 51 -- 52 through 56 provide more in-depth prescriptions on the issues that may be of interest to the committee. the paratransit project would fund projects at mta and is the only operation project. it would help to repair to under 47 sidewalk locations in the next fiscal year. the bicycle greenway funds the facilities city-wide and i want to note staff recommendation does include a deliverable to provide an evaluation, ethnology and budget for these. the original project -- the funding for his staff would involve -- based on discussion

on how the locations were chosen, i would like to note that npa has performed a suitability announcement with the highest likelihood of project success. there are 11 different factors, including slope and proximity to transit options. the capital improvements at the caltrans station facility would be used for improvements in the short term to remain accessibility options at the station and the bike study would identify improvements at that same facility in a mid to long- term time frame. tree planting and maintenance funds would be used to plant 375 trees in currently in the tree basins and members requested

additional information on how the agency plans to proceed with notifying adjacent property owners and we plan to hear an update of that procedure. >> a question on the tree maintenance program. would that include some of the medians where we have the small shrubs? there is this part of the street that has been for a number of years of waiting around to get funding to do greenery work in the median. >> the project is just for trees. i can follow-up west staff for have them address that issue. supervisor cohen: i have a

question on the trees -- we are planning -- planting the trees -- any indication of the time line of commitment? >> maintenance is for five years. supervisor cohen: what happens after that? who owns them and maintain some? >> i will take a crack and then defer -- the establishment pay is usually three to five years and that involves weekly watering, so it is much more labor intensive and then that planting itself, so it is the most expensive time in a tree's life. the industry standard -- they are on a 10-12 year cycle.

one of the things the representative might be able to shed some light on is one of the areas i am concerned about is we all agree we live in an urban city and can use more trees. but we are also finding that trees once the city relinquishes ownership goes to property owners or -- and property owners are not able to adequately afford to maintain these trees. i have been dealing with a couple of situations in a southeastern neighborhood where property owners trim the trees in an effort to keep them maintain and received fines. we are talking about a $6,500 fine. unbelievable. very heavy for a neighbor trying to do their part. i'm looking for a better understanding --'